January 15, 2017

Barack Obama Leaves a Mixed Legacy

The following article appeared in the Economic Times on January 15, 2017.

Eight years ago, on a freezing January morning, I stood
with over a million people on the National Mall in Washington DC to watch a
47-year-old African-American senator become the 44th US president. There was a
pervasive sense at the time, particularly among young, highly educated and
urban Americans, that Barack Obama could do no wrong. He campaigned on the
lofty themes of hope and unity and in opposition to the economic and foreign
policy overreach of the George W Bush years. He would fix the economy, heal
deep societal wounds once and for all and burnish America’s image around the
world. Yes, he could.

Today, as Obama’s tenure comes to an end, one can’t help
but wonder the extent to which his legacy will be shaped by the election of his
successor, Donald Trump. Trump campaigned on fear, outrage and grievances, and
he successfully exploited fissures in American society. Even critics will
accept that Obama brought a certain dignity to his office, something Trump has
tarnished even before his inauguration. But however much supporters of both men
will bristle at the notion, there is also a considerable degree of commonality
between the two. It is possible to see Trump not just as a counterpoise but
also a continuation of Obama.

It is helpful to look at Obama’s legacy along three
dimensions. The first, and one he gets too little credit for, is in his
handling of the economy. Obama inherited an America coming off its worst
financial crisis in 70 years. The recovery has been gradual and steady;
certainly not eye-catching but nonetheless impressive. The economy has grown
26% in dollar terms since 2008, it has experienced a second dotcom boom, and
the US for the first time became a serious energy exporter with the shale
revolution.

Unemployment, which peaked at about 10%, is now back to
pre-crisis levels. This is not at all an accident or good fortune. Bailing out
and restructuring the automotive industry was only one of the bolder, and more
unpopular, decisions that had to be made. A lot of this gets overshadowed by
the not-so-good news: growing inequality and a lower labour participation rate.
Nonetheless, the foundational strength of the United States is immense; its
latent power should not be underestimated.

Not Much Hope and Change

If Obama gets insufficient credit for his handling of the
economy, his domestic political and social legacy is much more mixed. His eight
years were marked by a difficult relationship with a Republican-dominated
Congress. Obama also had few friends and allies on the Democratic side of
Congress, making it more difficult for him to push his domestic agenda.
Healthcare reform, his cardinal domestic policy legacy, was watered down,
becoming a messy behemoth that did not sufficiently address the central issue
of rising healthcare costs. Obama himself admits his failure to do anything on
other matters that were dear to him, such as gun control.

And certain African-American commentators wonder exactly
what his presidency accomplished to improve the standing of minorities,
particularly given the large number of police killings of African-Americans.
Hope and change, it turned out, proved far better slogans than governing
principles.

US and Them

Finally, foreign policy could well prove the area where
we will look back upon the past eight years most critically. Obama often
brought a professorial, Socratic approach to key meetings on foreign policy and
national security, playing devil’s advocate and questioning truisms. But
professors often make terrible decision-makers.

On Syria, Libya and Afghanistan, Obama adopted
middle-path solutions, which turned out to combine the worst of every possible
outcome rather than the best. The Afghanistan war — the “good fight” for Obama
when he was a presidential candidate — is unresolved and likely to intensify.
Syria could be the most costly conflict in lives and treasure since the end of
the Cold War, a humanitarian crisis that the US both actively and passively
fanned rather than dampened.

But those are only the most egregious examples. The
administration waffled (not once, but twice) on its approach to China, the
pivot or rebalance to Asia proving too little, too late. Osama bin Laden was
killed in a risky, bold operation but the underlying reasons for his presence
in Abbottabad were conveniently brushed aside. The Russia reset lies in
tatters, as do the much vaunted outreach to the Muslim world and the
nonproliferation spirit invoked in Prague. On India, after laying the
groundwork for a transformed relationship, the administration stepped back —
rather than stepped up — in its last six months, in contrast to both Bill
Clinton and George W Bush. The prospects of a two-state solution in the Middle
East seem bleaker than ever.

Even Obama’s signature foreign policy achievements — the
Paris climate agreement, the Iran nuclear agreement, and the Trans-Pacific
Partnership — all now face uncertain futures, given the opposition of Trump and
the US Congress. If Franklin D Roosevelt and Harry Truman were, in the famous
words of one of their top advisors, “present at the creation” of the post-World
War II international order, we may look back upon the Obama-Trump years as
being present at its destruction.

This is where the commonalities between Obama and Trump
come into play. Both share a gift for storytelling, and a strong but sectional
electoral appeal. Both have proved guilty of promising simple solutions when
none necessarily exist. And both share an instinct of restraint, although
motivated by very different impulses. “Don’t do stupid shit,” was Obama’s
foreign policy mantra, and Trump might very well agree. But sometimes, that’s
necessary. Presidential legacies take time to evolve.

Truman, John F Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Clinton were
incredibly unpopular and divisive in their times, but are now remembered more
fondly. By contrast, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were far more popular
than many now choose to remember. Obama leaves office with an approval rating
of over 55%, comparable to both Reagan and Clinton. History, like with every
other president, will judge him on subsequent events.